alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Judicial Conference of the United States

# AGENCY:

Judicial Conference of the United States.

# ACTION:

Advisory Committee on Civil Rules; notice of open meeting.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Advisory Committee on Civil Rules will hold a meeting in a hybrid format with remote attendance options on April 9, 2024 in Denver, CO. The meeting is open to the public for observation but not participation. An agenda and supporting materials will be posted at least 7 days in advance of the meeting at:                         *https://www.uscourts.gov/​rules-policies/​records-and-archives-rules-committees/​agenda-books*.                    

# DATES:

April 9, 2024.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        H. Thomas Byron III, Esq., Chief Counsel, Rules Committee Staff, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, One Columbus Circle NE, Suite 7-300, Washington, DC 20544, Phone (202) 502-1820,                         *RulesCommittee_Secretary@ao.uscourts.gov*.                    

(Authority: 28 U.S.C. 2073.)

Dated: December 14, 2023.

Shelly L. Cox,

Management Analyst, Rules Committee Staff.

[FR Doc. 2023-27864 Filed 12-18-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 2210-55-P
# C_2021297EN.01000701.xml

| 26.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/7

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 June 2021 — European Commission v Fernando De Esteban Alonso

(Case C-591/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Internal investigation by the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) - Forwarding of information by OLAF to the national judicial authorities - Filing of a complaint by the European Commission - Concepts of an official who is ‘referred to by name’ and ‘implicated’ - Failure to inform the interested party - Commission’s right to file a complaint with the national judicial authorities before the conclusion of OLAF’s investigation - Action for damages)

(2021/C 297/04)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and J. Baquero Cruz, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: Fernando De Esteban Alonso (represented by: C. Huglo, avocat)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 11 June 2019, De Esteban Alonso v Commission (T-138/18, EU:T:2019:398); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 11 June 2019, De Esteban Alonso v Commission (T-138/18, EU:T:2019:398);

| 2. | Dismisses the action in Case T-138/18; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action in Case T-138/18;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs relating to both the proceedings at first instance and on appeal. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs relating to both the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 413, 9.12.2019.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Platten, Appellant.

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On November 2, 1988, Jeri Bartholomew was fatally shot in the head while in the bedroom of her home on Holland Avenue in the City of Batavia. Shortly after the shooting, defendant was arrested at the scene and was given *Miranda*warnings, which he acknowledged that he understood. Defendant was then transported to police headquarters where his *Miranda*rights were again read to him. Defendant stated that he understood his rights and agreed to speak with the police. Thereafter, an oral interview was conducted in which defendant admitted that he shot Ms. Bartholomew. Before reducing defendant’s statement to writing, the interviewing officer again read the *Miranda*rights to defendant. Defendant repeated that he understood his rights and that he wished to talk. At no time did defendant request to speak with an attorney or anyone else.

Either just prior to, or shortly after, the completion of defendant’s three-page typewritten statement, the Public Defender arrived at police headquarters and requested to see "the suspect”. The Public Defender, who never mentioned defendant’s name, had no prior relationship with defendant, and the record is devoid of any showing that defendant, or anyone on his behalf, requested the Public Defender to provide assistance to defendant. The Public Defender was not permitted to see defendant and defendant was never informed of her presence.

On appeal, defendant, relying primarily on our decision in *People v Brown*(66 AD2d 158), contends that his written statement should have been suppressed "in light of the conduct of the public officials in refusing [the Public Defender] access to [defendant], and failing to inform him of [her] presence.” We disagree. Unlike the circumstances in *People v Brown (supra,*at 163), there is no evidence here that defendant was "young and vulnerable” or that any prior relationship existed between defendant and the attorney who sought to speak with him *(cf, People v Brown, supra,*at 161, 163). Moreover, as the suppression court correctly concluded, nei*562ther the District Attorney nor any police officer was guilty of any "pattern of isolation and trickery designed to keep the defendant from obtaining counsel” *(People v Fuschino,*59 NY2d 91, 100; *see, People v Casassa, 49*NY2d 668, 681-682, *cert denied*449 US 842; *People v Garofolo,*46 NY2d 592; *People v Bevilacqua,*45 NY2d 508, 514; *People v Pinzon, 44*NY2d 458, 464; *People v Kern,*149 AD2d 187, 217-218, *affd 75*NY2d 638, *cert denied*— US —, 111 S Ct 77; *People v Lewis,*160 AD2d 815, 817, *lv dismissed*76 NY2d 738; *People v Brown, supra; see also, People v Crimmins,*64 NY2d 1072).

The record amply demonstrates that defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to counsel, and thus his suppression motion was properly denied.

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Genesee County Court, Morton, J. — Murder, 2nd Degree.) Present— Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Lawton, Lowery and Davis, JJ.
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1084 

To promote transparency by permitting the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board to allow its disciplinary proceedings to be open to the 

public, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 23, 2015 

Mr. REED (for himself and Mr. GRASSLEY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To promote transparency by permitting the Public Company 

Accounting Oversight Board to allow its disciplinary proceedings to be open to the public, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘PCAOB Enforcement 

5 Transparency Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. OPEN MEETINGS AUTHORIZED. 

7 Section 105(c)(2) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 

8 (15 U.S.C. 7215(c)(2)) is amended to read as follows: 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1084 IS

1 ‘‘(2) PUBLIC HEARINGS.—Hearings under this 

2 section shall be open to the public, unless the Board, 

3 on its own motion or after considering the motion of 

4 a party, orders otherwise.’’. 

5 SEC. 3. PUBLICATION OF DETERMINATIONS. 

6 Section 105(d)(1)(C) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 

7 2002 (15 U.S.C. 7215(d)(1)(C)) is amended by striking 

8 ‘‘(once any stay on the imposition of such sanction has 

9 been lifted)’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



     The undersigned  executive  officers of Ameriana Bancorp (the "Registrant")
hereby  certify that this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, and the information  contained in
the Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial  condition
and results of operations of the Registrant.



                      By:      /s/ Harry J. Bailey
                               -------------------------------------------------
                               Name:    Harry J. Bailey
                               Title:   President and Chief Executive Officer



                      By:      /s/ Bradley L. Smith
                               -------------------------------------------------
                               Name:    Bradley L. Smith
                               Title:   Senior Vice President and Principal
                                        Financial and Accounting Officer

Date: March 26, 2004
Federale skaap- en bok- amptelike identifikasiebesluitboom vir 

diere in interstaathandel

Identifikasiereëls geld wanneer die dier vir die eerste keer interstaathandel betree, soos om diere by markte, verkope, 

uitstallings of ander plekke waar interstaathandel plaasvind, af te laai; om diere oor ’n staatsgrens te skuif; om diere 

aan ’n koper buite die staat te verkoop of wanneer mense wat by interstaathandel betrokke is, diere aanskaf.

 Die diere se woonstaat of die ontvanger se staat kan bykomende vereistes hê.

1 Slegs van toepassing wanneer beide persele deur dieselfde persoon besit of gehuur word en daar geen vermenging met ander ongeïdentifiseerde diere van ’n 

ander trop is nie. 

2 ’n Goedgekeurde mark mag nie ongeïdentifiseerde gemengde-bron ongeskonde diere aanvaar om onbeperk te identifiseer en te verkoop nie. Sulke diere moet 

verkoop word as beperk tot slag. Om aan die regulasies te voldoen, moet markte ook ’n voldoeningsooreenkoms hê om sulke diere te aanvaar as hulle 18 maande 

of ouer is. 

3 Eienaar-vervoerderverklaring is nie nodig vir amptelik en individueel geïdentifiseerde diere wat nie in slagkanale is wat na ’n binnestaatmark gaan nie.

BEGIN HIER

Ja Nee

Ja

Ja

Ja

Ja

Ja

Ja

Nee

Nee

Nee

Nee

Nee

Nee

Is die diere seksueel 

ongeskonde?

Is die diere in 

slagkanale?

Is die diere jonger as 18 maande 

oud (sluit beide gemengde en 

enkelbron in)?

Word die diere vir bestuurs- of 

weidingsdoeleindes 1 na ’n 

federaal goedgekeurde 2 mark 

vervoer?

Kom die diere van ’n 

enkele bron?

Amptelike dierID en ’n eienaarvervoerderverklaring 

word vereis.

’n Eienaar-vervoerderverklaring3

insluitend groepidentifikasienommer 

kan gebruik word in plaas van amptelike 

dier-ID en interstaatlike veterinêre 

inspeksiesertifikaat.

Amptelike dier-ID 

en interstaatlike 

veterinêre 

inspeksiesertifikaat 

word vereis.

Amptelike dier-ID word 

vereis (geen eienaarvervoerderverklaring of 

interstaatlike veterinêre 

inspeksiesertifikaat 

word vereis nie).

Is die diere jonger as 

18 maande?

Geen vereistes.

Steek die diere 

staatsgrense oor?
1 The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 02-3397

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Southern District of Iowa. James Edward Gibson, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: March 6, 2003 Filed: March 10, 2003

___________ Before HANSEN, Chief Judge, MURPHY, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. James Edward Gibson pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture containing methamphetamine, and measurable amounts of cocaine and marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(C), and (b)(1)(D). The district court 1 found that Gibson was responsible for over 5 grams of actual methamphetamine, and sentenced him to 262 months imprisonment and 8 years supervised release.-2- On appeal, counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing the district court erred in its drug-quantitycalculation. Gibson has filed a pro se supplemental brief, also challenging the drugquantity calculation. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude there was no clear error. SeeUnited States v. Santana , 150 F.3d 860, 864 (8th Cir. 1998) (standard of review). In his plea agreement Gibson stipulated that he was responsible for 27.18 grams of a mixture containing methamphetamine; at his sentencing hearing a former state criminalist testified that, following laboratory protocol, she had thrice tested a single sample of the methamphetamine and had found an average purity of 20%; and even factoring in the laboratory’s 5% margin of error, the stipulated quantity of methamphetamine mixture would yield more than 5 grams of actual methamphetamine. We have further reviewed the record independently under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75 (1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we affirm. We also grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
ex10-7.htm


Exhibit 10.7

 

	
 






  



 

 




 


 

	
 






 


Table of Contents

 

	
Introduction 
	
 3

	
 
	
 

	
Persons Covered 
	
 3

	
 
	
 

	
Policy – Scope of Coverage  
	
 3



 

 





Responsible Party: Admin / Sam Jimenez

Board Approved: December 20, 2016 


2




 


 

	
 



   




 


Introduction

  

Bank of Commerce Holdings (the “Company”) has not historically maintained any policy or guidelines regarding the pledging of Company common stock owned by its directors or executive officers. The board of directors of the Company is aware, as disclosed in the Company’s annual meeting proxy statement, that a limited amount of Company common stock has been pledged as collateral by certain directors and executive officers of the Company. Although the Board does not view the pledging of Company common stock as problematic in and of itself, excessive pledging activity could in the future be an issue. Additionally, the practice is negatively viewed by certain proxy advisory firms. The Board also desires to clarify the Company’s positon with respect to margin accounts in this Policy. Accordingly, the Board hereby adopts this Anti-Pledging and Margin Account Policy (“Policy”). 

 

 

Persons Covered 

  

This Policy applies to (i) members of the Company’s board of directors, and (ii) the Company’s executive officers who are required to file reports pursuant to Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (collectively, the “Covered Persons”).

 

 

Policy – Scope of Coverage

  

Covered Persons are prohibited from pledging Company common stock or holding Company common stock in margin accounts, since securities held in a margin account may be sold by the broker without the customer’s consent if the customer fails to make a margin call and any such margin sale may occur at a time when the pledgor is aware of material nonpublic information or otherwise is not permitted to trade in Company securities. This Policy shall have no effect on any pledges of Company common stock by a Covered Person that has been made prior to the effective date of the Policy, except that (i) no such existing pledges may be increased in amount subsequent to the effective date of this Policy, (ii) no pledges, including pledges made prior to the effective date of this Policy, shall be permitted after December 31, 2018, and (iii) all such pledges must be ended by December 31, 2018, in any event. 

 

 

 

Responsible Party: Admin / Sam Jimenez

Board Approved: December 20, 2016

3
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the balance
sheet of CNL Income Fund VIII, Ltd. at December 31, 1997, and its statement of
income for the year then ended and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
the Form 10-K of CNL Income Fund VIII, Ltd. for the year ended December 31,
1997.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,602,236
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   70,621
<ALLOWANCES>                                    19,228
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                      15,398,766
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,438,534
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              32,258,296
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  31,216,398
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                32,258,296
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,339,715
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               377,922
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,241,567
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,241,567
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,241,567
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Due to the nature of its industry, CNL Income Fund VIII, Ltd. has an
unclassified balance sheet; therefore, no values are shown for current assets
and current liabilities.
</FN>
        



</TABLE>
#### James Lee DRUMN, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A-12489.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

Oct. 9, 1957.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 6, 1957.

*894Neptune & Stocker, Bartlesville, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

POWELL, Judge.

James Lee Drumn, plaintiff in error, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was charged by information filed in the district court •of Washington County with the crime of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, after having been previously convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The defendant waived a jury and was tried before the court. He was sentenced to serve one year in the State Penitentiary, and to pay a fine of $1, the minimum for the crime charged. The evidence is conclusive and unrefuted.

Here on appeal, but one specification of error is advanced, and being that: “The court erred in overruling the demurrer of the defendant to the information on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter, in that there had been no second and subsequent offense under the 19SS drunk driving act.”

The above proposition has recently had the attention of this court in the case of Miller v. State, 316 P.2d 203, and the conclusions there reached are contrary to the contention here advanced by the defendant. That case may be referred to for reasons for our conclusions.

See, also, the following authorities: Spann v. State, 69 Okl.Cr. 369, 103 P.2d 389; State v. Buttignoni, 118 Wash. 110, 203 P. 76; State v. Staples, 100 N.H. 283, 124 A.2d 187; and State ex rel. Griffith v. Anderson, 117 Kan. 540, 232 P. 238.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

BRETT, P. J., and NIX, J., concur.
July 24, 2015

Mr. John Santry

Owner

CA Drone Supply

1608 India Street #505

San Diego, CA 92101

Dear Mr. Santry:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

part 21, Subpart H; §§ 45.23(b), 61.113, 61.133, 91.7(a), 91.9, 91.109, 91.119, 91.121, 

91.151, 91.203(a)(1), and 91.401−91.417, of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). 

It explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We received your May 19, 2015, exemption request on behalf of Revolutionary Unmanned 

Systems LLC dba California Drone Supply into the public docket (No. FAA−2015−1714), but 

we are unable to process your request any further. Your petition does not comply with the 

requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must 

send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line at (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
3